Quote (duffman316 @ Sep 22 2019 08:18pm)
i read a quote on your sig and am wondering about this long series of events that led to the monarchy losing power and can't wrap my mind around how that can be done without violence or aggression
also, what do you mean by "justified and valid"?
history is quite clear that the monarchy owned the land at some point, on what grounds would anyone argue that is not justified or that their ownership of the land is invalid?
The quote in my sig doesn't say violence is never justified or never happened.
Quote (Thor123422)
So what constitutes "libertarian property rights"? Because I've literally never heard of a conception of property specific to libertarians, and I've honestly never heard a libertarian talk about what makes some property valid or not valid.
a brief summation:
Quote
As Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues in A Realistic Libertarianism and many other pieces, property rights arise only because of the fundamental fact of scarcity: the fact that in the real world human actors can have conflict over the use of scarce, rivalrous, material goods and means. To permit the peaceful, cooperative, productive, conflict-free use of scarce resources, property rights allocate a unique owner for each and every resource. The rules are simple, common sense, and natural. They are rooted in Lockean homesteading, or original appropriation: whoever has and uses a resource first has a better claim to it than a latecomer. And this basic rule is augmented by two others: consent, or contract; and rectification. If an owner contractually assigns (by gift, sale, etc.) the thing to someone else, then the recipient now has a better claim than the original homesteader. Indeed, he has a claim better than anyone else in the world, since he in a sense “piggybacks” on the title of his seller (“ancestor in title” in legal jargon). With respect to any third party, he has a “better claim” because he stands in the shoes of (called “subrogation” in the law) his seller, but with respect to the seller, he has a better claim because of the contract between them. And a third rule is based on rectification: if a property owner harms some victim, he owes some form of compensation or restitution, which may be satisfied out of the assets of the owner-tortfeasor. So if there is a dispute over who should have ownership of a given resource by two or more competing claimants, the libertarian answer is that we answer the question by appeal to these principles: who had it first, what contracts were engaged in, what torts were committed. These principles can be used to determine the owner of any contested resource.
- Stephan Kinsella
You can also refer to
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises or a section of
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N Rothbard titled 'Property Rights'
https://mises.org/library/human-action-0https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifestoA king and his men initiating violence and claiming ownership over everything and everyone is not homesteading or voluntary trade and is not consistent with the NAP.